## Facts

- Joseph H. was a 10-year-old boy with a very difficult childhood.
- Joseph’s mother used multiple drugs while pregnant with him; Joseph was later diagnosed with ADHD and tested in the low-to-average intelligence range.
- Joseph was severely neglected and physically abused by his mother and sexually abused by his mother’s boyfriend.
- When Joseph was about three or four years old, he and his younger sister were placed with their father, who abused drugs and alcohol and physically abused Joseph.
- One morning, Joseph shot his father in the head while the father was asleep on a sofa.
- After police arrived, Joseph admitted he had shot his father; the firearm was recovered.
- While Joseph was in custody, a detective advised him of his Miranda rights.
- Joseph said he understood and agreed to speak, and he then gave statements about the shooting.
- In juvenile wardship proceedings, the petition alleged conduct that would constitute murder if committed by an adult, along with a gun-discharge-causing-death allegation.
- Despite California’s statutory presumption that a child under 14 is incapable of committing a crime, the juvenile court found Joseph understood the wrongfulness of his acts and intentionally fired the gun, causing death.
- The juvenile court determined Joseph’s conduct would have constituted second-degree murder if committed by an adult and committed him to the Division of Juvenile Justice for a maximum term described as 40 years to life.
- Joseph appealed to the California Court of Appeal, arguing (among other claims) that the juvenile court should have excluded his custodial statements because his Miranda waiver was not voluntary, knowing, and intelligent given his age and limitations.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that under the totality of the circumstances Joseph understood his Miranda rights and validly waived them.
- Joseph petitioned the California Supreme Court for review, which produced the cited entry at 367 P.3d 1.

## Issues

1. Should the California Supreme Court grant review to address whether, and how, the “voluntary, knowing, and intelligent” Miranda-waiver standard can be applied to a 10-year-old child?
2. What is the legal effect of the California Supreme Court’s denial of review on the Court of Appeal decision that affirmed admission of Joseph’s custodial statements and the juvenile court’s capacity finding?

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court denied Joseph’s petition for review.
- Three justices (Liu, Cuéllar, and Kruger) indicated they would have granted review.
- Because review was denied, the Court of Appeal’s judgment affirming the juvenile court’s rulings remained in effect.
- The denial of review did not constitute a California Supreme Court decision on the merits of Joseph’s Miranda waiver or the juvenile court’s findings.

## Legal Principles

- A Miranda waiver is valid only if it is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent—made with awareness of the right being given up and the consequences of giving it up.
- Courts evaluate waiver validity under the totality of the circumstances, including a juvenile’s age, experience, education, background, intelligence, and ability to understand the warnings and what waiver means in practice.
- Under California law, a child under 14 is presumed incapable of committing a crime unless the prosecution proves the child understood the wrongfulness of the act.
- A California Supreme Court denial of review is not a merits ruling and does not adopt the Court of Appeal’s reasoning as California Supreme Court precedent; it simply leaves the lower court’s judgment in place.
- A dissenting statement from denial of review does not change the result; it explains why the dissenting justices believed the court should have heard the case.

## Conclusion

*In re Joseph H.*, 367 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2015), is the California Supreme Court’s memorandum entry denying a petition for review of a published Court of Appeal decision that affirmed a juvenile court’s admission of a 10-year-old’s custodial statements after a Miranda advisement and waiver and affirmed findings overcoming the under-14 incapacity presumption for conduct deemed second-degree murder if committed by an adult; three justices dissented from the denial, urging review to address Miranda waivers by children as young as ten.


In re Joseph H., 367 P.3d 1 (2015)